/m/otp

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I quite simply don't see where people are going with the above argument. It betrays a lack of understanding of how self defense law works. And the injuries Zimmerman had were certainly serious enough to create a reasonable fear of imminent severe bodily harm or death, to trigger his legal right to act in self defense.

I've said repeatedly he's going to get off legally because there's enough there where he can scoot by on self-defense. I don't think that 'exonerates' him, though, and in my ideal world it's manslaughter and he gets 3-5 years. I still see little evidence that suggests he *needed* to shoot Martin.

A broken nose, bloodied lips, facial bruises, and multiple cuts, scrapes, bruises & abrasions on the back of Zimmerman's head are pretty significant.

No, not really, as the medical examiner testified today. A whole host of 'very insignificant' (her words) injuries, la-dee-frickin'-dah. Oh, but Zimmerman was being 'slammed,' 'bashed,' and 'wailed' (his words) into a concrete sidewalk. Yeah, right.

You do realize that the Medical Examiner who made those statements never examined Zimmerman but made those comments based on photos? And that Medical Examiner had been fired from her previous job for incompetence but was hired in Jacksonville by the Angela Corey, who later became the Special Prosecutor, and that Corey selected to her work on the case even though she had no connection to it -- SHE WAS NOT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER WHO PERFORMED THE MARTIN AUTOPSY. Any idea how the cross-examination went? I would say not well, she came across as someone who ignored the actual evidence. I very much doubt the jury will give her testimony any weight SINCE YOU DON'T HAVE TO SUSTAIN INJURY IN ORDER TO RESORT TO SELF-DEFENSE, and the defense has medical professionals who actually examined Zimmerman and reached a different conclusion from that Medical Examiner.

Tell that to the Guardian Angels. As a New Yorker you may have heard of them.

----------------------------------------------------------

Joe really seems to believe that the future of the GOP lies in maximizing the angry white male and angry RTL female vote and ignoring pretty much everyone else. I sure hope that they keep listening to him.

There's been a party for angry white males in the US ever since the Constitution was ratified, and arguably before that. It's not likely to go away. Ever.

Yeah, but the difference now is that 99% of them are concentrated in the GOP and acting like the skunk in the garden party, whereas not that long ago the AWM's were divided in their party loyalties. This is currently good news for the Democrats' political fortunes, but not such great news for the country as a whole.

I'll admit, my head was totally in the sand when this Martin death occurred and the subsequent media and attention seeking talking head obsession. I knew and followed this about as much as I follow any other celebrity nonsense. I'm now fascinated by the trial, but mostly due to prior life as a prosecutor. The State's case is not the worst I've ever seen, but it is quite poor. The State almost always needs to air the dirty laundry to soften the blow upon cross, but this is such an apologetic case. At least there's no mystery over shot JR.

I've said repeatedly he's going to get off legally because there's enough there where he can scoot by on self-defense.

He would not be "scooting by"; self defense means that you are not a murderer.

I don't think that 'exonerates' him, though, and in my ideal world it's manslaughter and he gets 3-5 years. I still see little evidence that suggests he *needed* to shoot Martin.

Sigh. Please go read the statutes. He doesn't have to show that he "needed" to shoot Martin; he doesn't have to show that shooting Martin was his only way out, or that he had no other alternative. He only has to show that he had a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

Or are we just talking about what would happen in "your ideal world"? Because I don't care what would happen in "your ideal world"; I only care what _should_ happen in this one.

You do realize that the Medical Examiner who made those statements never examined Zimmerman but made those comments based on photos?

What about Serino, who didn't believe that Zimmerman was badly hurt, or that Martin punched him so much....even saying his claims were 'exaggerated?' Do you really believe Zimmerman's account that Martin hit him 25-30 times? And was slamming his head into the concrete over and over? That Martin tried to smother him? That Martin had his gun until he wrestled it away? I mean, jeez, this Martin tried to kill Zimmerman 50 different ways.

Even throwing the ME out, there is little to suggest that Zimmerman was being pummeled like he says he was. Zimmerman has told many stories to make Martin's assault look as dangerous as possible. But the bottom line is there were small injuries at best, probably from being caught (gasp) with a punch or two, much like a typical minor altercation. I don't feel it was in any way necessary to shoot the kid.

What about Serino, who didn't believe that Zimmerman was badly hurt, or that Martin punched him so much....even saying his claims were 'exaggerated?' Do you really believe Zimmerman's account that Martin hit him 25-30 times? And was slamming his head into the concrete over and over? That Martin tried to smother him? That Martin had his gun until he wrestled it away? I mean, jeez, this Martin tried to kill Zimmerman 50 different ways.

It is possible that someone pinned to the ground and pummeled from above may have an exaggerated sense of how frequently he was being hit and how many times his head was pounded into the concrete. So what? The question isn't whether Zimmerman accurately counted the blows -- and he may have --the question is whether he had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Zimmerman didn't have to take more blows in order to invoke his right to self-defense. This has been clarified numerous times by many different posters, why is it difficult to understand?

Even throwing the ME out, there is little to suggest that Zimmerman was being pummeled like he says he was

The testimony of Jonathan Good supports Zimmerman's account, and he was also the witness that had the best view. There is also another witness for the prosecution who testified that the guy in dark was on top hitting the guy on the bottom who was wearing red. Although she said she thought Zimmerman was on top based on her assumptions about their voices [EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD NEVER HEARD EITHER VOICE BEFORE], all the other evidence indicates that Martin was wearing a dark hoodie while Zimmerman wore a red jacket. So that testimony actually corroborates Zimmerman's story about being pummeled, unless you think he switched clothes with Martin during the encounter.

Meanwhile, as we obsess over the death of one person -- however tragic it might be -- other things are happening in the country.*

In other news, the NSA situation ("scandal" has become a charged and loaded term) continues...the two Senators leading the questioning of the intelligence-gathering practices of the NSA have stated, publicly, that intelligence officials have exaggerated the actual utility of the covert spying on American citizens:

"In our judgment it is also important to note that intelligence agencies made statements to both Congress and the [Fisa] Court that significantly exaggerated this program's effectiveness," ... "This experience demonstrates to us that intelligence agencies' assessments of the usefulness of particular collection programs – even significant ones – are not always accurate. This experience has also led us to be skeptical of claims about the value of the bulk phone records collection program in particular." ... "It is up to Congress, the courts and the public to ask the tough questions and press even experienced intelligence officials to back their assertions up with actual evidence, rather than simply deferring to these officials' conclusions without challenging them."

Unless you can cite to that testimony, I believe this is, once again, a mischaracterization of Zimmerman's story. He indicated that Martin saw the gun and went for it, but as far as I know, Zimmerman never said Martin had control of the gun. I suggest people review the evidence more carefully before attempting to characterize it for the benefit of the BBTF citizenry, as I believe there may be a pattern to these inaccuracies.

Zimmerman didn't have to take more blows in order to invoke his right to self-defense. This has been clarified numerous times by many different posters, why is it difficult to understand?

Well, yeah, under Florida law if someone looks at you funny you're allowed to invoke your right to self-defense. They're a bit lax in that area.

Recognize that some of us are talking about what *should* happen, not what *will* happen. Despite Zimmerman's horsecrap story and incredible stupidity, he will walk under the law. But the law sucks sometimes, and this is one of those times. So I shall sound my barbaric yawp about this inevitable miscarriage of justice.

Well, yeah, under Florida law if someone looks at you funny you're allowed to invoke your right to self-defense. They're a bit lax in that area.

This is another inaccuracy that you, and others, keep posting. Zimmerman's defense would work in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. No state requires that you take more punishment than Zimmerman took in order to claim self-defense.

Unless you can cite to that testimony, I believe this is, once again, a mischaracterization of Zimmerman's story. He indicated that Martin saw the gun and went for it, but as far as I know, Zimmerman never said Martin had control of the gun. I suggest people review the evidence more carefully before attempting to characterize it for the benefit of the BBTF citizenry, as I believe there may be a pattern to these inaccuracies.

"I thought (Zimmerman) had said (Martin) grabbed the gun. I believe (Zimmerman) said (Martin) grabbed the gun."

That's testimony from Mark Osterman, who wrote the book supporting Zimmerman and was talking about a conversation they had. Granted, this is witness recollection, which isn't perfect, but that was what he said Zimmerman told him. Take from that what you will (ie Zimmerman supporters will dismiss it as poor recollection, and Martin supporters will use it to point out the inconsistencies in Zim's story.)

"I knew when he felt the sidearm at my waist with his leg. He took his hand that was covering my nose and went for the gun, saying, 'You’re gonna die now, motherf-----.' Somehow, I broke his grip on the gun where the guy grabbed it between the rear sight and the hammer. I got the gun in my hand, raised it toward the guy’s chest and pulled the trigger."

That (relayed) story suggests Martin had *some* control over the gun, since it mentions Trayvon having a grip on it. How much is up for interpretation, like everything else in the maddening case. This case is unfortunately a lot of guessing games because there's not enough evidence to know the real truth. Heck, I'm not even sure Zimmerman knows what the hell happened, so IMO he probably made up some stuff to paint himself as more of a victim.

Maybe, but I believe it is settled law that spotting another person with a gun doesn't give one cause to assault them. You generally need "brandishing" or "pointing" before you can claim self-defense. Of course, in the above-scenario the claim of self-defense is even weaker since it suggests it was Martin's assault of Zimmerman that brought the gun into view.

I don't think that is correct, or at least as I understood the timeline. One report I saw has Zimmerman and Martin exchanging words, he reached for his cellphone, and then Martin hit him. My question is did Martin misunderstand what Zimmerman was reaching for, based on the location of the holster, and think that Martin was actually reaching for his gun? I know of no evidence that supports or contradicts this, so it is pure speculation on my part. I don't even think it hurts Zimmerman, as his intent was actually to get his phone.

I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that this event might not have turned out so tragically had Martin been carrying a firearm of his own. An armed confrontation is a polite confrontation, as you may have heard. Are there any programs set up to help subsidize handgun purchases for underprivileged and minority youth so that they avail themselves of their Second Amendment rights to self-defense?

Zimmerman's stupidest mistake here was patrolling alone. I have been involved in a watch, and that is pretty much the #1 rule. If you don't have backup, stay in your house and don't get involved with anything.

Tell that to the Guardian Angels. As a New Yorker you may have heard of them.

Well, they were prohibited by NY assinine gun laws from arming themselves. Of course, if NY had rational concealed carry laws, the Angels would never have been necessary. Bernie Getz was able to defend himself quite nicely.

They were also young males travelling in groups. An old man, or a woman on a neighborhood watch team is far more in need of a firearm for self-defense. Remember God made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

Tell that to the Guardian Angels. As a New Yorker you may have heard of them.

Well, they were prohibited by NY assinine gun laws from arming themselves. Of course, if NY had rational concealed carry laws, the Angels would never have been necessary. Bernie Getz was able to defend himself quite nicely.

Right, just what we'd have needed in the New York subways of that time: Shootouts as a regular occurrence, with the cops called in to clean up the corpses.

Of course NO criminal would've ever shot one of those armed Guardian Angels and then taken their guns, no sirree. There's ethics in every profession.

From what, being asked if he had five dollars? Goetz was a trigger-happy coward (as evidence by his flight from the scene and destruction of the evidence).

By a gang of 5 men, some of whom were carrying sharpened screw drivers, most of whom were career criminals. If you don't know that the next step was a mugging, you're either completely unfamiliar with 1980's NY, or just have your head in the sand.

Getz was only convicted of gun charges. His self-defense claims were valid.

Right, just what we'd have needed in the New York subways of that time: Shootouts as a regular occurrence, with the cops called in to clean up the corpses.

Of course NO criminal would've ever shot one of those armed Guardian Angels and then taken their guns, no sirree. There's ethics in every profession.

If the average citizen is likely to be armed, predators will be deterred from attacking them in the first place.

And if the Guardian Angels or other law-abiding citizens had shot a few dozens muggers and rapists, that would have done wonders for the crime rate too.

Who cares if a criminal happens to take a gun once or twice? Criminals have zero difficulty obtaining guns, then or now.

They were also young males travelling in groups. An old man, or a woman on a neighborhood watch team is far more in need of a firearm for self-defense. Remember God made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

Jesus, what's your next solution for cleaning up crime, a neighborhood watch team make up of Mammy Yokum and the Six Flags guy?

--------------------------------------------------

Bernie Getz was able to defend himself quite nicely.

From what, being asked if he had five dollars? Goetz was a trigger-happy coward (as evidence by his flight from the scene and destruction of the evidence).

I'm probably more willing to defend Bernhard Goetz than most people here, but it was only a minor miracle that there weren't a lot more casualties in the subway that day than the punks who'd surrounded him. In crowded situations you can't always be guaranteed that the good guys are all expert marksmen.

By a gang of 5 men, some of whom were carrying sharpened screw drivers, most of whom were career criminals. If you don't know that the next step was a mugging, you're either completely unfamiliar with 1980's NY, or just have your head in the sand.

Their criminal records are, of course, irrelevant. Goetz had no way of knowing them. And if Getz thought his claim was valid, why did he run through the subway tunnel, hide out in the woods for weeks, and destroy the gun. Compare his actions to Zimmerman's, who stuck around and fully cooperated with the police.

And if the Guardian Angels or other law-abiding citizens had shot a few dozens muggers and rapists, that would have done wonders for the crime rate too.

Maybe we should start arming the alter boys when they are alone with the priests. That would do wonders for the child rape rate.

Yeah, but the difference now is that 99% of them are concentrated in the GOP and acting like the skunk in the garden party, whereas not that long ago the AWM's were divided in their party loyalties. This is currently good news for the Democrats' political fortunes, but not such great news for the country as a whole.

Eh, they were pretty well concentrated in the Democratic Party for 180 years. There's nothing unusual about the situation today except that the parties have changed names. The declining demographics and better civil rights enforcement will limit the damage they can do, but won't stop them from trying.

Their criminal records are, of course, irrelevant. Goetz had no way of knowing them. And if Getz thought his claim was valid, why did he run through the subway tunnel, hide out in the woods for weeks, and destroy the gun. Compare his actions to Zimmerman's, who stuck around and fully cooperated with the police.

He knew he was facing a year in prison for the illegal gun. He could have been 100% sure of his self-defense claim and still wanted to avoid prison on the gun charge.

I'm sure snapper would welcome that suggestion. (smile)

I'm 100% fine with every person who is not a convicted felon on mentally ill being armed.

If a pedophile priest got shot by one of his victims, bully for the shooter.

I'm getting the strong feeling that you're seeing this every-citizen-armed-to-the-teeth society as some sort of a utopia. I think we've gone far enough with this sort of discussion.

Utopia? No. Would it reduce crime? Yes.

If I lived in a state with reasonable gun laws (I'm 100% behind background checks and mandatory safety classes), I'd be armed 100% of the time.

States that have adopted "shall-issue" concealed carry laws have seen no wave of citizens shooting innocent bystanders; that's a red-herring of the worst sort.

And of course what Snapper is ignoring is that NYC's crime rate was radically reduced after the Police embarked upon a very aggressive disarmament campaign... in essence they did the opposite of what Snapper thinks they should have done.

Regarding Goetz, I think the main issue most had with him was not whether or not he had been about to get mugged (he most certainly was), to the extent public opinion turned against him in some quarters it was do to his own statements, he claimed that after he shot the punks, he paused, looked at one and said, you don't look so bad" and shot him again. (Ironically none of the other witnesses remember that, all said that Goetz unloaded the entire clip at once, no pause).

NYC's crime rate was radically reduced after the Police embarked upon a very aggressive disarmament campaign

In sharp contrast to Philadelphia, which has long remained far more dangerous. One element that helped make NYC safer was the installation of a cop on every subway train – I forget the date of this innovation, probably late 1980s. I doubt that armed self-policing would have been nearly as peaceful and effective a process. But that's often the unknown in these debates. A libertarian can say, well sure, your repressive police state reduced crime, but Wild West conditions would have reduced it sooner and more thoroughly …

There's no particular correlation between gun control and gun violence one way or the other, because there are too many other factors at work. New England has few gun murders, despite being a mix of urban-blue states with strong gun laws and rural left-libertarian hunter-culture states with weak ones. Southern states tend to have weak laws and lots of gun murders, but that's not an absolute correlation, and states like Maryland and California have strong laws and relatively many murders (and are heavily urbanized). New Jersey and Alaska have similar (and middle-of-the-pack) gun-murder rates despite being as unlike as possible in every other way. I just don't think that the promised lands of either armed citizenry or gunless socialism have much to do with crime. Much larger cultural issues are at work, including attitudes toward the social compact, and strategies of policing that involve more or less community involvement. As with so many things, it's a hugely complicated problem.

And of course what Snapper is ignoring is that NYC's crime rate was radically reduced after the Police embarked upon a very aggressive disarmament campaign... in essence they did the opposite of what Snapper thinks they should have done.

You mean stop and frisk? That's a disarmament campaign aimed at criminals. I'm all for that. It would have zero impact on licensed gun owners.

It's also 100% consistent with allowing concealed carry for law abiding citizens. Arm the law abiding, and disarm the criminals.

There's been a party for angry white males in the US ever since the Constitution was ratified, and arguably before that. It's not likely to go away. Ever.

Yeah, but the difference now is that 99% of them are concentrated in the GOP and acting like the skunk in the garden party, whereas not that long ago the AWM's were divided in their party loyalties. This is currently good news for the Democrats' political fortunes, but not such great news for the country as a whole.

Eh, they were pretty well concentrated in the Democratic Party for 180 years. There's nothing unusual about the situation today except that the parties have changed names.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the book Sundown Towns, thousands of which were spread mostly throughout the North, the Midwest and the West. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the Angry White Male of yesteryear was purely a southern or Dixiecrat phenomenon.

I just don't think that the promised lands of either armed citizenry or gunless socialism have much to do with crime. Much larger cultural issues are at work, including attitudes toward the social compact, and strategies of policing that involve more or less community involvement. As with so many things, it's a hugely complicated problem.

It may be complicated due to regional variance in laws and enforcement, but a U.S. with the gun laws of Japan or England would still be a far less deadly country than we have today. Some people might accept the tradeoff, but a tradeoff is what it surely amounts to.

There's no particular correlation between gun control and gun violence one way or the other, because there are too many other factors at work. New England has few gun murders, despite being a mix of urban-blue states with strong gun laws and rural left-libertarian hunter-culture states with weak ones. Southern states tend to have weak laws and lots of gun murders, but that's not an absolute correlation, and states like Maryland and California have strong laws and relatively many murders (and are heavily urbanized). New Jersey and Alaska have similar (and middle-of-the-pack) gun-murder rates despite being as unlike as possible in every other way. I just don't think that the promised lands of either armed citizenry or gunless socialism have much to do with crime. Much larger cultural issues are at work, including attitudes toward the social compact, and strategies of policing that involve more or less community involvement. As with so many things, it's a hugely complicated problem.

I agree with this completely. However, it is far to rational and reasonable for an internet forum.

The thing that always gets me about gun-rights advocates (for which I, generally, am one) is that the amount of training required to usefully use a gun is far more than even the most ardent (including a lot of cops) engage in. A gun is a powerful weapon but it isn't magic. Handling one adeptly in a combat situation is difficult and requires a lot of training and practice. I think we would be a better, safer society if a lot of people were both carrying AND properly trained and practiced. But the guys that want to carry seem to do it more for status sake and don't want to put in the time needed to really know what they're doing.

I just don't think that the promised lands of either armed citizenry or gunless socialism have much to do with crime. Much larger cultural issues are at work, including attitudes toward the social compact, and strategies of policing that involve more or less community involvement. As with so many things, it's a hugely complicated problem.

Very true. I don't particularly like guns but between those alternatives, I'd prefer armed citizenry to gunless socialism, because it doesn't rely on fantasy land thinking. You can't turn the America of today, with as many guns as people, and even worse, developing technology to print your own guns at home, into an efficient European-style gun control state.

If it were possible to rid the country of guns*, I would prefer living in a world where the most dangerous weapons were swords and bows. By Crom, I happen to be pretty good with both.

*I mean really get rid of them, not just sign a piece of paper saying having them is illegal. To the point where police officers don't carry them either, and have to find other means of killing kittens and puppies.

I don't particularly like guns but between those alternatives, I'd prefer armed citizenry to gunless socialism, because it doesn't rely on fantasy land thinking. You can't turn the America of today, with as many guns as people, and even worse, developing technology to print your own guns at home, into an efficient European-style gun control state.

And IMO that's the only serious argument against gun control: The logistical and political impossibility of getting from here to there, in a country that in many ways is 51 separate fiefdoms.

Handling one adeptly in a combat situation is difficult and requires a lot of training and practice. I think we would be a better, safer society if a lot of people were both carrying AND properly trained and practiced. But the guys that want to carry seem to do it more for status sake and don't want to put in the time needed to really know what they're doing.

It requires training and practice, but not that much. 99% of defensive uses of handguns will occur at ranges under 10 feet. You don't need to be a good shot. Lord know, most police are awful shots.

What you need is to be familiar with the working of the gun, and levelheaded enough not to panic. Accidental firing b/c you don't know the functionality is the greatest danger.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the book Sundown Towns, thousands of which were spread mostly throughout the North, the Midwest and the West. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the Angry White Male of yesteryear was purely a southern or Dixiecrat phenomenon.

The big picture remains this: It's utterly amazing that the past 30-odd years of economic growth and "progress" have brought us a nation that's far more gun-nutty and far more religio-nutty than the nation of 30-odd years ago. Utterly ####### amazing.

Owning a gun wasn't even really an issue 30 years ago and 30 years ago you had a huge societal, cultural, and generational rebellion against establishments like the government and religion so I'm not really shocked that either of your beliefs. Though I think you're mistaken. 30 years ago religion was much more powerful than it is now in America and if anyone had tried to take the guns away back then, well, it wouldn't have been pretty.

The thing that always gets me about gun-rights advocates (for which I, generally, am one) is that the amount of training required to usefully use a gun is far more than even the most ardent (including a lot of cops) engage in. A gun is a powerful weapon but it isn't magic. Handling one adeptly in a combat situation is difficult and requires a lot of training and practice. I think we would be a better, safer society if a lot of people were both carrying AND properly trained and practiced. But the guys that want to carry seem to do it more for status sake and don't want to put in the time needed to really know what they're doing.

You know what's even more prominent and a constant in our lives is automobiles. And they are more dangerous. And very few of us practice being better drivers. Indeed, many act like it's their divine right to be poor drivers who do threatening things ever time they are on the road. There's going to be blowback either way.

What bothers me (and I'm no absolutist) about everyone being armed in public is powerfulness of modern weapons. A mere pistol shot in a Goetz type gunfight can kill someone two blocks away, can go through the wall of a building and kill someone. If I have the choice of guns for everyone or no guns for anyone, I know which I'd prefer. Of course, in some ways that leaves me at the mercy of thugs. There's a downside there, too, just like with facilitating shootouts. You also need laws, laws that are enforced, and you need peace keepers. But there's no panacea. It's ultimately about what kind of world you want to live in and what kind of world you want to foster. There's going to be blowback either way.

Though I think you're mistaken. 30 years ago religion was much more powerful than it is now in America and if anyone had tried to take the guns away back then, well, it wouldn't have been pretty.

What I think has changed is that religion has become more polarized.

30 years ago, you had more luke-warm Mainline Protestants and liberal Catholics. As time has passed, these people have either become more religious, either within their Church, or by becoming Evangelicals, or have more completely lapsed into the "believer with no affiliation", "spiritual, but not religious", or agnostic categories.

So, you completely dismiss the right to self-defense? For most women, the elderly, the physically disabled, etc., denying the right to gun ownership is a denial of the right to self-defense.

Let's just say that WRT to the likelihood of avoiding predatory violence, the people in those categories would be better off living in England or Japan. But as I've said, the cat is long out of the bag, and for a thousand reasons we're never going to bell that cat.

But the guys that want to carry seem to do it more for status sake and don't want to put in the time needed to really know what they're doing.

Does not square with my observations. The people I know that own guns do their part to keep the ranges profitable.

Agree with AROM.

By the way, the prosecution is trying to show that Zimmerman took courses and knew about gun laws and self defense laws. I'm not a gun owner and have no desire to be one, but in my experience lawful gun owners are generally up on these laws.

It's the white liberal males who have no idea what self defense law is, as evidenced by many on this thread.

It's utterly amazing that the past 30-odd years of economic growth and "progress" have brought us a nation that's far more gun-nutty and far more religio-nutty than the nation of 30-odd years ago. Utterly ####### amazing.

The country is actually less religious than it was (ie., Church attendance is still slowing inching down), those who remain religious are far more aggressive and more unified/concentrated so to speak. Overall Protestant attendance is down for instance, but the denominations we tend to equate with the evangelical right are actually up. The effect is the country seems more religious in someways because the religious are "more religious" not that the people as a whole are more religious

As far as being "gun nutty" this country has always been gun nutty, back in the early 80s one of the guys I worked with had an American Rifleman subscription, the political commentary was the same then as now, "the evil commie leftist librul pinkos are coming to get your guns!!!!!! Stand up for your 2nd amendment rights!!!!"

A mere pistol shot in a Goetz type gunfight can kill someone two blocks away, can go through the wall of a building and kill someone.

Two blocks away, yes. Go through a exterior wall? Highly unlikely.

Good pistol training would also stress the use of proper defensive handguns, and ammunition. You don't use magnum loads for self-defense, and a 9 mm with full-metal jacket is a poor choice for self-defense. Wad-cutters, hollow-points, and frangible rounds all greatly reduce the penetrating power of a pistol round.

You know what's even more prominent and a constant in our lives is automobiles. And they are more dangerous. And very few of us practice being better drivers. Indeed, many act like it's their divine right to be poor drivers who do threatening things ever time they are on the road. There's going to be blowback either way.

True. And I think that is crazy. Driving should be taken more seriously by just about everyone.

As to my comments above, I wasn't clear, but I was specifically talking about folks who carry in public. Using a gun for home defense is, or can be, a lot easier. Crawl in your hidey hole and aim at the door. It's possible to know who is in your house and to identify them with questions. Engaging in the use of a gun in public, trying to decide who is an actual threat, using the gun before they're too close, but not when they're too far away, staying level headed, etc. is much more difficult. Maybe it's just the range I go to, but most of the concealed carry guys almost seem to be looking for a situation in which they can deploy their weapon. Not all by any means, but a lot. And I've seen them shoot - they aren't up to it.

It's utterly amazing that the past 30-odd years of economic growth and "progress" have brought us a nation that's far more gun-nutty and far more religio-nutty than the nation of 30-odd years ago

I have no idea if we are more gun-nutty (not sure if you mean laws or popular opinion anyway), but by most metrics we are less relio-nutty (in number if not volume).

I would argue the religious nuts are louder and more panicky now because religion is losing popularity and secularism and multi-culturism (in this context presence and acceptance of more religions) are on the rise.

When frontier lawmen like Wyatt Earp and Bill Hickock (and they weren't the only ones) became Marshall of a frontier town, what's the first thing they did? Check your guns when you enter town, boys. Pick them up when you leave. This is about the public, not just individual self-defense.

What bothers me (and I'm no absolutist) about everyone being armed in public is powerfulness of modern weapons. A mere pistol shot in a Goetz type gunfight can kill someone two blocks away, can go through the wall of a building and kill someone. If I have the choice of guns for everyone or no guns for anyone, I know which I'd prefer. Of course, in some ways that leaves me at the mercy of thugs. There's a downside there, too, just like with facilitating shootouts. You also need laws, laws that are enforced, and you need peace keepers. But there's no panacea. It's ultimately about what kind of world you want to live in and what kind of world you want to foster. There's going to be blowback either way.

Very well put, Morty. Whether we like it or not, we can't rub a magic lantern and just wish away the political realities of our current gun culture. We have to confront it as it exists.

When frontier lawmen like Wyatt Earp and Bill Hickock (and they weren't the only ones) became Marshall of a frontier town, what's the first thing they did? Check your guns when you enter town, boys. Pick them up when you leave. This is about the public, not just individual self-defense.

But Morty, you forget that "there's no such thing as 'society'", and there's no such thing as "societal rights".

Also, in my experience, most liberals WOULD like to take everyone's guns. Like a lot you here, many recognize that isn't practical. But I'm always mystified when people make fun of gun advocates for claiming that someone is coming for their guns. Usually the people making fun of them are, or would like to, coming for their guns.

That is, there is plenty to make fun of with gun-nuts. Their feeling that a lot of people would like to take their gun is not one of them.

You can't seriously be saying that the loudest voices against gun control are women, the elderly, and the physically disabled.

No. But what does that matter?

When frontier lawmen like Wyatt Earp and Bill Hickock (and they weren't the only ones) became Marshall of a frontier town, what's the first thing they did? Check your guns when you enter town, boys. Pick them up when you leave. This is about the public, not just individual self-defense.

Doesn't make it right. The courts have repeatedly ruled the police have no responsibility to protect citizens. It is unconscionable to deny them the right to defend themselves.

Good pistol training would also stress the use of proper defensive handguns, and ammunition. You don't use magnum loads for self-defense, and a 9 mm with full-metal jacket is a poor choice for self-defense. Wad-cutters, hollow-points, and frangible rounds all greatly reduce the penetrating power of a pistol round.

You seem to always think appeals to self-improvement are the answer. Again, how's that worked with automobiles? There are schools, public service announcements, traffic laws and fines, threats, appeals, and bribes, and it just gets worse. Just going by the way people behave in automobile, you would think all the laws on lane-change and turn signals had been repealed. Everyone's driving around listening to music on their whatever and texting like mad. Relying on individuals to shape up in a modern age as the answer when a country has 150,000,000 drivers (or 20 million gun users) ain't a stable strategy for improvement.

Are you talking constitutional or moral/practical? Because I would argue a society without the implicit right to public safety will not be a happy or stable society, whether or not that right is codified or not.

EDit: Added the word practical to get at what I was aiming at (so to speak).

Are you talking constitutional or moral? Because I would argue a society without the implicit right to public safety will not be a happy or stable society, whether or not that right is codified or not.

Both.

Public safety is a good thing, like economic growth, and we should try to achieve it. But it is not a right, any more than economic growth is.

The number of actual universal rights is quite small. Freedom of speech, worship, ownership of property, self-defense, freedom from involuntary servitude, but not much more.

Actually, Morty, aren't driving fatalaties and injuries way, way down? I realize most of that is due to improvements in automobile design but it can't be ignored. I've asked a bunch of students about car wrecks and very few seem to know anyone who has been killed in a wreck. In my four years of high school I knew around 10 people my age who had been killed.

I'm saying that bringing up these groups in direct relation to gun control is pointless in the first place, as the percentage of these groups who care about whether they are allowed to carry guns is miniscule.

To the guys saying, no, they don't really want to take anyone's guns, I'll take your word for it. But as a gun-owner who is very open to stricter regulation at all levels of government, that isn't the message I get from your side.

Well the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does include Article 3 "•Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" as well as many other universal rights you neglected in your very short list.

Which rights listed do you disagree with? Which are not(or should not be) "universal"?

To the guys saying, no, they don't really want to take anyone's guns, I'll take your word for it. But as a gun-owner who is very open to stricter regulation at all levels of government, that isn't the message I get from your side.

And I grok that, as there are guns I would take away. Just not the one your wife is going to end up taking you out with while you're trying to get some water in the middle of the night, trip over a shoe in the hallway, and crash through the bedroom door. :-D

Seriously, though, I can see why the line is murky, the state of agreement on the left in regards to guns isn't exactly laser-like.

And I can't for the life of me figure out why we would allow private citizens to own weapons that are essentially artillery in terms of mass-damage capability.

We don't. There is no right to possess artillery or high explosives of any kind (e.g. grenades).

Which rights listed do you disagree with? Which are not(or should not be) "universal"?

I'm not going to parse every word of a UN document, and a lot of it is restatements of the same thing.

But, I don't think there is any natural right to democratic gov't (Article 21), and the UN apparently doesn't either since they've admitted the worst dictatorships on earth from the beginning.

I think this is utter nonsense:

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

This is completely subjective, and not based on any rational concept of rights.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

And this is meaningless pie-in-the-sky utopianism.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Under the UN's definition 99% of societies in history, and a good 75% of those currently existing including China, Russia, and nearly all Muslim countries are in violation of many of these rights, and therefore illegitimate.

Under the UN's definition 99% of societies in history, and a good 75% of those currently existing including China, Russia, and nearly all Muslim countries are in violation of many of these rights, and therefore illegitimate.

Why doe sit shock you that the ideal of rights is violated by most regimes? It seems to me that any set of universal rights that is met by most of history is a weak set of rights indeed. And most of the rights you set forth are also violated by those same governments so I am not sure of the point you are trying to make, my limited rights scheme is better because it too is not met by most of history?

It looks like snapper's "rational" utopia consists of every certified non-criminal walking around with a concealed weapon, which will somehow result in 100% deterrence and a zero crime rate. Color me cynical, but I'm not sure that this would work out quite as he intends.

This is completely subjective, and not based on any rational concept of rights.

Any statement of rights is, by definition, "subjective." There is no objective/universal set of rights, other than what a group of people ("society") determine to be a set of rights. Something that we would all agree to be a "fundamental human right" would have been laughed out of the room 50, 100, 200, 1,000 years ago - or even today, but in a different part of the world.

And this doesn't even address the goal-post shifting that went on (still goes on?) with respect to the definition of "human," permitting societies/people to move various groups of people outside the umbrella of human rights by shifting the definitional requirements.

The UN's Universal Declaration is, in my subjective view, a pretty good statement, but to pretend that there is some "universal" set of rights beyond what we define for ourselves at a given moment in time is ridiculous.

Also, I'm not trying to say you guys shouldn't want to take guns (I disagree and think the arguments best make the case for balance, but I can see how someone comes down on the side of "take the guns"). If that is what you think, fine, make the case and stand by it. But I see a lot of case making for taking the guns immediately followed by making fun of gunowners who say they fear people want to take their guns.

You say you don't want to take hunting guns but you also say you're going to be the ones deciding that. There just is no way the gun rights folks aren't making arguments that would take a lot of guns out of a lot of law abiding hands. As I say, there is a case for that, some of that. But just don't hide from the fact that that is, in fact, the case you're making.

CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt's army commander and Islamist President Mohamed Mursi each pledged to die for his cause as a deadline neared on Wednesday that will trigger a military takeover backed by protesters.

Military chiefs, vowing to restore order in a country racked by demonstrations over Mursi's Islamist policies, issued a call to battle in a statement headlined "The Final Hours". They said they were willing to shed blood against "terrorists and fools" after Mursi refused to give up his elected office.

Less than three hours before an ultimatum was due to expire for Mursi to agree to share power or make way for an army-imposed solution, the president's spokesman said it was better that he die in defence of democracy than be blamed by history.

In an emotional, rambling midnight television address, Mursi said he was democratically elected and would stay in office to uphold the constitutional order, declaring: "The price of preserving legitimacy is my life."

Liberal opponents said that showed he had "lost his mind".

Two army armoured vehicles took up position outside state broadcasting headquarters on the Nile River bank and most staff were evacuated from the building, security sources said.

The state news agency MENA said civil servants were occupying the cabinet office and would not let Prime Minister Hisham Kandil enter the building.